At HEAD, how much of football's per-player slope on the closing game total does the board's projection carry, and how much slope is left in the residual (actual - projection)? Does the game total carry information at a fixed implied team total (the H-164 mix axis)?

Owner lane: serving

Question

At HEAD, how much of football's per-player slope on the closing game total does the board's projection carry, and how much slope is left in the residual (actual - projection)? Does the game total carry information at a fixed implied team total (the H-164 mix axis)?

Prediction

Prereg 2026-09-23T1838Z (research/scientist/prereg/2026-09-23T1838Z-h159-total-slope.md): E1 carried pooled 0.40-0.65; E2 residual slope pooled +0.04..+0.12 pts per total point, CI excludes 0, largest for RB and QB; E3 at fixed ITT WR/TE positive, RB near 0 or negative. Falsifier: E2 CI spans 0.

Finding and verdict

TESTED. The '6% of football's slope' premise does NOT reproduce at HEAD: the board carries 38% pooled (42% within-season) -- QB 69%, WR 38%, TE 27%, and RB carries the WRONG SIGN (board -0.024 against football +0.058). The residual slope is +0.082 [+0.067,+0.097] fantasy points per point of game total per player-week, CI excludes 0 at every position (Bonferroni-26 too) and positive in all 7 seasons; across one sd of total (4.4 pts) that is 0.36 pts per player-week the board leaves on the market's table. At fixed ITT the total is a MIX signal: WR +0.047, RB -0.029.

Reasoning

With MARKET_ON off, the served board has no pre-kickoff handle on game environment beyond trailing team aggregates; this sizes what that costs and where. It is also where a prop market will price us out: the closing total is public, and our lines under-react to it by 58% on average.

Next action

(1) The claimed 6% came from somewhere before G-TDANC/CP-H65 -- not re-derived; the claim should not be quoted. (2) A candidate that reads the game environment WITHOUT the market (opponent defence pace/scoring, weather) should close part of +0.082 -- that is the D-320-compatible route; measure the residual slope as its endpoint. (3) RB wrong-sign slope is the sharpest single defect: the board projects RBs LOWER in higher-total games. (4) Market-as-feature is a policy question for the horizontal review, not this lane.